Archives for category: Privatization

Now that Commissioner Pryor has the go-ahead from Governor Malloy to apply the principles of corporate education reform, he has loaded up the payroll of the state education department with his fellow reformers. Here comes the privatization movement, prepared to bust unions, demoralize teachers, and generate profits for friends of the movement.

Naturally, there is a Talent Officer, a Turnaround Officer, a Performance Manager, and a bevy of Broad interns. This in one of the nation’s top performing states.

Anthony Cody has an excellent post that explains what you need to know about the massive data-collection program called inBloom.

The database will contain detailed personal information about students and teachers. The corporation cannot guarantee the security of this data.

Arne Duncan made inBloom possible by loosening the regulations of FERPA, the federal law that is supposed to protect student privacy.

Let’s just say that this whole project is an outrage. It is a massive invasion of privacy. As the grandparent of a public school student, I am furious! I don’t want Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, and Joel Klein to have my family’s personal information.

New Orleans has a higher proportion of students in privately-managed charters than any other district in the nation. Most get poor ratings. Research on Reforms says that 79% of the charters in the Recovery School District were graded D or F by the state. The Cowen Institute, a big supporter of charters, reported that 66% of the charters were rated D or F (see p. 7 of this report).

But New Orleans will get more. Major national chains want to get in or get more.

New Orleans will be our first city with fully privatized schools.

Tom Aswell, investigator journalist and blogger, is covering and uncovering evidence of fraud in the Louisiana Course Choice program.

Hundreds of students were somehow registered for online courses without the knowledge of the students or their parents. How did this happen? This would mean a massive transfer of funds from Louisiana taxpayers to online corporations based in Texas, connected to former Secretary of Education Rod Paige.

What a tangled web of connections.

Course Choice is part of Jindal’s privatization plan, along with vouchers. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled recently 6-1 that Jindal may not use the funding dedicated to public schools to pay for vouchers and course choice. But John White is undeterred by inconveniences like court rulings.

New Yorkers will be interested to note that former NYC Deputy Chancellor Eric Nadelstern, who worked for Joel Klein and was John White’s boss, endorsed the online courses that are part of the scandal.

Same old story in North Carolina as elsewhere: big money from reactionary millionaires funding the theft of public education. American Federation for Children is based in Michigan. It supports vouchers.

Wake the town and tell the people.

Large, out-of-state donors fuel North Carolina’s school “choice” movement
More than $90,000 funneled to state legislative campaigns in 2012

By Lindsay Wagner

In March of 2012, North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis and ten other state lawmakers flew to Florida on the dime of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina (PEFNC), an organization known for endorsing conservative education reform initiatives, including school vouchers.

In the year that has followed, North Carolina has absorbed a flood of more than $90,000 in campaign contributions to lawmakers friendly to the school choice movement.

The stated intent of last year’s trip was to educate North Carolina lawmakers about Florida’s tax credit scholarship program, which encourages companies to donate scholarship money for low-income children to attend private schools by providing matching state tax dollars. Critics of the Florida program say it’s a thinly-disguised voucher scheme that diverts funds from the public school system to send kids to private institutions that are not held to the same high standards applied to public schools.

The Florida trip, which cost $8,300, was clearly billed as “educational,” rather than “influential,” by PEFNC in an effort to ensure that the trip did not violate NC lobbying laws.

Since the Florida gathering, lawmakers in the North Carolina legislature have introduced more than 20 bills related to school choice. Rep. Marcus Brandon, one of the eleven lawmakers who went to Florida, argues that “it is unconstitutional not to give students a choice” when it comes to their education. He has introduced six bills related to school choice this session, including two bills that would bring vouchers to the state.

Brandon was also one of several lawmakers who, in 2012, received campaign donations from PEFNC’s PAC as well as individual PEFNC funders.

Though not indicative of any apparent unlawful activity or purpose, the story of where this money originated and how it flowed shines a revealing light on a movement that bills itself as a grassroots effort driven by the demands of average families.

American Federation for Children

Earlier this month, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a copy of the American Federation for Children’s (AFC) “2012 Election Impact Report.” The report reveals that AFC, a well-known national school choice advocacy organization, funneled more than $90,000 to the 2012 election campaigns of Republican and Democratic North Carolina lawmakers who support school choice, with the help of two local PACs in North Carolina.

Researchers Sarah Reckhow of Michigan State University and doctoral student Jeffrey Snyder reported at an AERA session that foundation giving is increasingly concentrated on a small number of recipients.

Foundation funding is moving away from giving to public schools–attended by 90% of American students–and is going instead to “challengers” to the system, especially charter schools–attended by about 5% of American students.

The story in Education Week says:

“At the start of the decade, less than a quarter of K-12 giving from top foundations—about $90 million in all—was given to the same few groups. Five years later, 35 percent of foundation giving, or $230 million, went to groups getting support from other foundations, and by 2010, $540 million, representing 64 percent of major foundation giving for K-12, was similarly aligned.”

The groups now getting the lion’s share of foundation funding are KIPP, Teach for America, the NewSchools Venture Fund, the Charter School Growth Fund, and the D.C. Public Education Fund.

None of the main recipients of foundation funding are models for American education. All are committed to privatization. The best known alumni of TFA are Michelle Rhee, John White of Louisiana, and Kevin Huffman of Tennessee, all of whom support vouchers and charters.

When will the foundations wise up and stop supporting failed policies?

Don’t they care about the 90% of American children who attend public schools? Or do they think that someday all schools will be run by private entrepreneurs?

Nicholas Lemann has written a powerful review of Michelle Rhee’s memoir, in which she calls herself “radical.” She is indeed radical. She wants to tear down public education, a basic democratic institution. That is very radical.

As Lemann points out, Rhee has reduced all the problems of American education to the very existence of unions. This can’t offer much hope to the many states where unions are weak or nonexistent. Who should those states blame since they don’t have unions to scapegoat?

Lemann notes that Rhee loves to portray herself as a victim, a woman of courage who stands up fearlessly to the rich and powerful. The reality, of course, is that Rhee is a tool of the rich and powerful.

An excerpt:

“Rhee is a major self-dramatizer. As naturally appealing to her as is the idea that more order, structure, discipline, and competition is the answer to all problems, even more appealing is the picture of herself as a righteously angry and fearless crusader who has the guts to stand up to entrenched power. She is always the little guy, and whoever she is fighting is always rich, powerful, and elite—and if, as her life progresses, her posse becomes Oprah Winfrey, Theodore Forstmann, and the Gates Foundation lined up against beleaguered school superintendents and presidents of union chapters, the irony of that situation has no tonal effect on her narrative. Again and again she gives us scenes of herself being warned that she cannot do what is plainly the right thing, because it is too risky, too difficult, too threatening to the unions, too likely to bring on horrific and unfair personal attacks—but the way she’s made, there’s nothing she can do but ignore the warnings and plow valiantly.”

Of course, she is ridiculous because she has collected tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, from America’s richest people. Just days ago, she got $8 million from the far-right Walton Family Foundation.

The other point Leman makes is that Rhee has no evidence for her claims. She starts with her conclusions, then looks for “evidence.”

An excerpt:

“Rhee simply isn’t interested in reasoning forward from evidence to conclusions: conclusions are where she starts, which means that her book cannot be trusted as an analysis of what is wrong with public schools, when and why it went wrong, and what might improve the situation. The only topics worth discussing for Rhee are abolishing teacher tenure, establishing charter schools, and imposing pay-for-performance regimes based on student test scores. We are asked to understand these measures as the only possible means of addressing a crisis of decline that is existentially threatening the United States as a nation and denying civil rights to poor black people.”

Eva-Marie Mancuso, chair of Rhode Island’s state education board, passionately defends the status quo.

Over the protests of parents, students, and teachers, Mancuso supports high-stakes testing. Despite overwhelming evidence from researchers that evaluating teachers by test scores is inaccurate, unstable, and demoralizing, Mancuso wants more. Despite the protests of student leaders across the state, Mancuso insists that standardized tests–the NECAP–should be a graduation requirement.

A recent poll of teachers found that 85% oppose a new contract for the state superintendent Debirah Gist. Mancuso doesn’t care. Gist is a member of Jeb Bush’s hard rightwing Chiefs for Change, which includes the most conservative, test-loving, privatizing superintendents in the nation.

Gist was the superintendent who wanted to fire every teacher and staff member at Central Falls High School in 2010 because test scores were low. No teacher or staff member had been evaluated.

Mancuso is prepared to stand and fight for the status quo.

The writer of this article, Colin Woodard, recently won the George Polk award, one of the highest honors in journalism.

The article is bout a sordid effort to promote technology as a for-profit enterprise in Maine schools. To introduce a Maine virtual charter school, to require online courses for graduation, and to follow a script written not by educators but by lobbyists.

This is a classic. Don’t miss it.

This year the city of New York will pick a new Mayor, after 12 years of Michael Bloomberg.

There were only supposed to be 8 years of Bloomberg, as the voters of New York City had twice endorsed term limits of only 2 terms. But Bloomberg decided he wanted a third term, refused to call for a referendum, and got his faithful friend City Council President Christine Quinn to twist a few arms, promise that the members of the City Council would also get a third term, and voila!, our mayor had the chance to drop another $100 million into winning a third term.

For some reason, he thinks that his legacy will be his education “reforms,” but the voters don’t agree. The last Quinnipiac poll showed that only 22% of voters want his autocratic style of governing the schools to continue. The rest want some form of shared governance, where other elected officials have a voice in choosing the city’s school board, and the school board treats parents and the public with a modicum of respect.

Despite the constant trumpeting of the Bloomberg PR machine, voters understand that the city school system has not improved and that it is highly inequitable. Leonie Haimson and I wrote an article in The Nation recently describing the elitist tone and consequences of the Mayor and his policies. The proportion of black and Hispanic students admitted to the city’s exam schools (Stuyvesant, Bronx Science, Brooklyn Tech, etc.) has dropped precipitously during the Bloomberg years. The numbers are in the linked article. Brooklyn Tech, for example, which had an enrollment about 23% black and Hispanic, now has only 10%. The admission of black and Hispanic children to the city’s coveted gifted and talented programs has plummeted since the Bloomberg administration decided that it would be determined only by a single test score, even for the youngest children. The city’s state test scores, once the mayor’s greatest boast, collapsed in 2010 when the state education department admitted that it had made the tests too predictable and lowered the passing score each year. The Bloomberg administration boasts about the rising graduation rate, but never pairs it with the fact that some 80% of the graduates who enter community college require remediation in basic skills. The mayor boasts about reducing the black-white and Hispanic-white achievement gaps, but the federal tests (NAEP) show the gaps unchanged over the past decade.

And so the mayoral election is underway, and the Democratic candidates have loudly criticized the mayor’s policies. I moderated a parent forum at PS 29 in Cobble Hill (every Democratic candidate showed up except Christine Quinn, who was attending a fundraiser, and none of the Republican candidates accepted the invitation). The entire event was videotaped and it is here on the website of Parent Voices New York.

The questions I asked were written by parents. They wanted to know (I am paraphrasing, you can watch and see the original):

1) what will you do to reduce class size to not more than 20 children in the early grades (class size in New York City is the highest in 14 years)?

2) what will you do to end high-stakes testing?

3) will you end Bloomberg’s policy of assigning letter grades to schools, which no one understands and which are highly misleading?

4) what will you do to make the governance system more democratic, so that parents have a voice?

5) will you end Bloomberg’s policy of closing schools based on low test scores?

Every candidate–Bill Thompson, Sal Albanese, Bill DiBlasio, John Liu–disagreed with the Bloomberg administration’s policies.

All promised to dismantle the heavy-handed reforms of the past dozen years. All agreed that schools should be helped, not closed; that class sizes, especially in the early grades, should be reduced; that the school-grading policy should be abandoned; and all promised a more democratic and more open form of governance when the mayoral control law expires in 2015.

The Bloomberg administration won’t let the critics go unanswered. They have nothing left to boast about, so they fall back on weary platitudes about “we can’t go back to the bad old days.” The mayor sent out Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott to defend the Mayor’s sterling record. Walcott is the third non-educator appointed by Bloomberg to be chancellor. He was preceded by litigator Joel Klein and publisher Cathie Black. The mayor thinks that educators don’t know anything about education.

Dennis Walcott was once a civil rights leader. He was head of the New York Urban League before he went to work for Bloomberg as deputy mayor, largely as an ambassador to the black community. I don’t envy him. He has to defend an administration that has privatized the public schools across large swaths of black and Hispanic neighborhoods. He has to defend an administration that has made testing its major strategy. He has to defend an administration that cares not a whit that only 9 black students were admitted to Stuyvesant High School this year, in an entering class of 1,000. He has to defend an administration that has whitened the enrollment of gifted programs by making admission dependent on a single test score. He has to defend an administration that oversaw the gutting of arts in the schools.

The mayor called his program “Children First” when he announced it on Martin Luther King Jr. Day back in 2003. We now know that the children who come first are the ones whose parents are knowledgeable enough and have time enough to navigate a complex system of choices and testing. We know which children don’t come first.

Poor Dennis.